Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Apr 19, 2011 12:07am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

Wow! I thought most of these had been removed already! But Jeff’s work is never done. Sorry to add to your troubles, but:
http://www.archive.org/details/TheOmagaMan - Has valid notice in credits
http://www.archive.org/details/TheBorrowers - Has valid notice in credits
http://www.archive.org/details/CaptainPlanet - Not only has valid notice, but the Cartoon Network logo in every episode!
http://www.archive.org/details/NukesInSpaceTheRainbowBombs - No notice, but made in 1999, so it doesn’t need one.
http://www.archive.org/details/UndertakerVsTripleH-Wrestlemania2723 - Get serious!
http://www.archive.org/details/poopdeck_pappy - renewed 1968, R436907
Thanks!

This post was modified by skybandit on 2011-04-19 07:07:35

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: menno4000 Date: Apr 19, 2011 12:46am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

Lately it seems that several uploaders see no difference between IA and websites like rapidshare. They also add in a snotty 12-year old's attitude even those in their 50's, as if sneering and nasty language somehow proves their point.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Blade_Runner Date: Apr 19, 2011 7:30pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

You do realize those uploaders with the snotty 12 year old attitude are actually dvd and movie studio executives trying to wreck the archive by uploading copyright films.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: menno4000 Date: Apr 20, 2011 12:12am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

Regarding studio execs, I am not that suspicious. I would think studio execs would attack rapidshare which has way more saleable movies on it's site. Most of the movies posted here are not in the top 10 lists when it comes to demand, despite the high quality of many of them.
That having been said I think Congress was clearly wrong when it extended copyright to the current now ridiculous lengths. The original 28 years plus one 28 year renewal was right. I haven't crunched the numbers, but I suspect very few films 57 years old or older do a brisk business. The older film classics would account for nearly all such business.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Administrator, Curator, or StaffVideo-Cellar Date: Apr 20, 2011 1:37am
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

Even if it was the studio execs, it would probably backfire. I remember a few years ago when one of the record co's put up trackable files onto a file sharing network their cases against the network and downloaders were thrown out because the court deemed the uploaded files to be authorised by the copyright holder and, as such, the filesharing was legitimate and legal.

There are a few 57+ years old films that are still big catalogue earners (Gone With The Wind, Casablanca, Wizard of Oz, Disney Films, Hitchcock's movies). It probably amounts to less than 1% of all films made 1954 and before that are still profitable and many of those listed have entered the public domain outside the US. The copyright extensions are keeping the majority of works in copyright for no other purpose than protecting the few profitable properties. Ideally, with such long terms the renewal system should still be in place with renewal at 28 years (end of 1st term), 56 years (end of 2nd term) and 75 years (end of 1st extension term) that would put more of the unprofitable and orphaned works progressively into the public domain earlier.

This post was modified by Video-Cellar on 2011-04-20 08:37:41

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: skybandit Date: Apr 22, 2011 12:39pm
Forum: feature_films Subject: Re: More to remove

I just sneer and use nasty language right back...once.
After that I just laugh at them when they get riled :)

This post was modified by skybandit on 2011-04-22 19:39:39